The kilogram is now defined by setting Planck's constant as 6.62607015 x 10-34 kg·m²per second¯¹. (https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/11/14/18072368/kilogram-kibble-redefine-weight-science)
I find it funny that the yanks are the keeper of the kilogram, but don't even use it themselves. :)
Seems to me that they have high intelligence but low common sense. If a metre has been accurately defined (as well as temperature) then a kilogram could be defined in terms of a theoretical sphere (or cube, rectangle etc) of a known substance (perhaps platinum or other substance) of set dimensions at a set temperature. Such a theoretical object wouldn't lose mass and could be replicated as a real object at any time or any location.
Also have to question the sanity of boffins who claim that the fixing of a standard for the metre as the most exciting thing to ever happen in their careers. And I thought my career was boring.
Quote from: 'Triggersmob' pid='117547' dateline='1542436529'I find it funny that the yanks are the keeper of the kilogram, but don't even use it themselves. :)
Interesting thing is when I went to university
mumble, mumble years ago (OK 50 years ago) and studied electrical engineering, most of the textbooks were American and they were all metric units.
nealeffendi is basically correct but there are a lot of variables that have to be controlled to make that work. The new definition is actually simpler, albeit incomprehensible to about 99.8% of the population, and -most importantly- can be replicated anywhere.
Of course the fact that the standard (in Paris) kilogram has lost 50μg (micrograms) over the years is really important to the boffins. Completely irrelevant to everyone else.
Incidentally that mass (not weight, that is a different thing) loss is 0.000005%!
Will it do much to the value of precious metals. IE: Gold, silver and the like.
If it makes the metals more valueable, yes. If not, I am not interested.
Will have no effect on anything really, so consider yourself disinterested.
OK, will do.